Thank you for a very comprehensive summary of 2012 and quite reasonble predictions for 2013.

It seems to me from a perspective within the US, that the rudiments of market monetarism are gradually seeping into the general consciousness. The need to promote growth while reducing spending is now heard even in the popular press [I almost said "liberal press" but remembered Paul Krugman's NYT column and caught myself]. The exact corelation between interest rates, tight money, unemployment and rigid inflation targets may be elusive. Debating the fine points will continue; nonetheless, the man in the street now wants lower unemployment and a growing economy, and he does not see these coming about as a result of expanding government. This is a significant breakthrough.

Perhaps the most significant result of the recent Presidential election is that Ben Bernanke's position as Fed Chair is safe for the time being.

will spend money like a spoiled mistress with a new credit card (so frightening to behold), no doubt about that. Will the CB print like Zimbabwe - that's Abe's plan, but will they actually do it? Hope so - let them be the guinea pig, and then in a few years we'll finally know for real if print-'n-spend by a top-tier economy works like a charm or leads to disaster - my money's on the latter. If they do QE-to-infinity, then no matter what happens Japan seems odd-on to be the big clinical-trial/case-study of 2013. (Everyone else would be smart to wait-'n-see first, before emulating Japan.)

Q & A ‘du jour’-

In an economic sense, how does QE differ from the counterfeiting of currency by individuals? (Ans. – it doesn’t.)

US Economist editor apparently needs to review what gerrymandering is.

Instead of "Voters failed to deliver the cathartic moment where one policy or another was endorsed, they gave us a Democratic presidency and a Republican House."

An editor wanting to be accurate would say something to the effect of "The hoped for cathartic moment didn't arrive as voters reelected Obama but were defeated by Republican gerrymandering in the House."

I think you have to demonstrate that the rearrangement of electoral boundaries between 2008 and 2012 favored Republicans; furthermore, that the rearrangements themselves were the cause of the defeat of the Democrat candidates in those electoral districts, or, alternatively, that had the boundaries been left as they were in 2008, the outcome in the House would have favored the Democrats. If you want anyone to take you seriously, you got "some 'splainin' to do".

All you've shown me is that you don't believe in representative government. Are you American? Do you serve on an electoral boundary committee? If not, why not? The system won't work properly if citizens don't volunteer to help and insure fairness. You can't just sit back and complain if things don't go the way you expect. In fact, once an election is over, citizens owe the republic majoritarian support.

Gerrymandering is done just as enthusiastically by Democrats as Republicans. Otherwise please explain how in Illinois the Democrats got 55% of the vote in house races but got 12 out of 18 seats. But you don't seem to mind that.